In this case, I feel a picture really is worth at least 675 words:
Jumped
- Posted in: controversial, Cops, Legal Matters, Media, Portland, Stories, Writing
- Tags: Cops, Matt Davis, news, Writing
-
Bio
Matt Davis is mostly a writer, photographer, editor, publisher, entrepreneur and communications professional. In the renaissance tradition he occasionally also turns his hand to sewing, acting, poetry, filmmaking and so on. But when he dies, he would like to be judged solely on the quality of the relationships he enjoyed throughout the course of his life with other people. Because he feels, in the end, that those are the only point in being alive to do anything.
You mean locking up all the spray paint hasn’t cramped the taggers’ style?
Also, is the “before” pic really necessary?
Wow, makes me glad to have left PDX (and lately I’ve been missing it a little).
You mean locking up all the spray paint hasn’t cramped the taggers’ style?
Also, is the “before” pic really necessary?
Wow, makes me glad to have left PDX (and lately I’ve been missing it a little).
He’s obviously a clear and present danger to all we hold dear. Ship him off to Gitmo and fuck ‘em. Those cops just “schooled” him a bit.
The PPB does no wrong (just ask ‘em, they’ll tell ya)
Matt; shut up with your lefty/commie/LIBERAL whining.
He’s obviously a clear and present danger to all we hold dear. Ship him off to Gitmo and fuck ‘em. Those cops just “schooled” him a bit.
The PPB does no wrong (just ask ‘em, they’ll tell ya)
Matt; shut up with your lefty/commie/LIBERAL whining.
I don’t know why they just don’t admit they beat him for rocking that awful Hasselfro.
I don’t know why they just don’t admit they beat him for rocking that awful Hasselfro.
I don’t understand.
He’s not black so why did they beat him?
I don’t understand.
He’s not black so why did they beat him?
Perhaps they thought he was “acting strange.”
That was the justification for the cops’ initial encounter with James Chasse.
Perhaps they thought he was “acting strange.”
That was the justification for the cops’ initial encounter with James Chasse.
Do have permission to repost those photos?
Cause… I was under the impression you did not.
Perhaps you can explain to me how that works.
If you want to repost images, especially when you repost them on a commercial site like the Mercury, you should ask for permission from the person who created the image.
Actually, it’s more than a “should”, it’s a legal issue.
Maybe you have permission, in which case, great! No problem. But seeing as how those images were taken off the web by their creator/owner then it seems like you are in fact stealing them.
On the web this sort of thing is pretty common, but that doesn’t make it legal nor does it make it okay.
Stealing from some Google Image search isn’t likely to make anyone mad, because no one really knows when you steal images that way. But in this case it appears (and again, this is an assumption on my part) you stole from UrbanHonking.com, which is a lot less cool than stealing from Google.
We’ve all taken images from the web. But taking images that the creator/owner took down and that the subject doesn’t want you to have is shitty.
Of course, being that you are the real “journalist” here, I would assume you know most of this already.
If you want to repost images, especially when you repost them on a commercial site like the Mercury, you should ask for permission from the person who created the image.
Actually, it’s more than a “should”, it’s a legal issue.
Maybe you have permission, in which case, great! No problem. But seeing as how those images were taken off the web by their creator/owner then it seems like you are in fact stealing them.
On the web this sort of thing is pretty common, but that doesn’t make it legal nor does it make it okay.
Stealing from some Google Image search isn’t likely to make anyone mad, because no one really knows when you steal images that way. But in this case it appears (and again, this is an assumption on my part) you stole from UrbanHonking.com, which is a lot less cool than stealing from Google.
We’ve all taken images from the web. But taking images that the creator/owner took down and that the subject doesn’t want you to have is shitty.
Of course, being that you are the real “journalist” here, I would assume you know most of this already.
Actually, Mikey, I had no idea. But if you’d like to take the issue up with my editors it’s lovenotes@portlandmercury.com.
Actually, Mikey, I had no idea. But if you’d like to take the issue up with my editors it’s lovenotes@portlandmercury.com.
So you don’t have permission?
Where did you get the photos from? Either you asked for them, or you didn’t. Simple really.
I’m not responding to any more of these. If you’d like to take the issue up with my editors it’s:
lovenotes@portlandmercury.com.
Matt, I’m not a lawyer and I’m not going to sue you or anything. I’m just asking a question.
Why have comments if you aren’t going to answer questions?
This isn’t a mercury website, why would I contact your editors about what you post on your personal blog?
If you want to have a less public conversation about this feel free to shoot me an email: kmikeym@kmikeym.com.
But as a man who is a “proponent of criticizing Portland even though it has a lot to recommend it—because a city that can’t take criticism is a small town that’s yet to grow up,” it seems like you’d be willing to discuss criticisms about your writing and reporting style.
It seems pretty weak to deflect any criticism to your editors.
And not to keep beating a dead horse or anything, but it’s also a violation of the ToS of your webhost:
http://mediatemple.net/company/legal/aup_general.php
“Provider does not allow any of the following content, or links to such content, to be published on Media Temple’s Hosting Systems: Content of an illegal nature (including stolen copyrighted material).”
It seems Mr. Davis enjoys pretending he doesn’t understand the rules of journalism. How long have you been in this profession?
No permission was granted for him to use the photos which were posted on Urban Honking, and since I had to take down the forum entries he references everyone is unable to see the amount of plagiarism involved in the opening of his article.
I’ll save the rest of my thoughts for the letter to your Portland Mercury editor, since the editor of this site has oddly shut his mouth.
It seems Mr. Davis enjoys pretending he doesn’t understand the rules of journalism. How long have you been in this profession?
No permission was granted for him to use the photos which were posted on Urban Honking, and since I had to take down the forum entries he references everyone is unable to see the amount of plagiarism involved in the opening of his article.
I’ll save the rest of my thoughts for the letter to your Portland Mercury editor, since the editor of this site has oddly shut his mouth.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that all that is required is to give attribution and a link-back to photos from another site. And Matt indeed did give attribution and credit in the original Merc story. I don’t think he needs permission to re-post his own work.
Mikey and J. John, I’m all for beating Matt like a drum when appropriate, but why don’t you two go back to pulling wings off flies or something equally useful. The grown-ups are trying to talk.
Actually Richard, you’re wrong. Copyright is copyright, and saying where you got something from does not make it legal.
Now of course Copyright was invented before the internet, and it’s pretty common to post something, say where you got it, and then remove it later if there is an issue. I’m usually pretty okay with that system.
But in this case Matt used images and text that the creator removed from the web in order to protect the privacy of the victim. And he did so knowing that those images and text were removed.
That changes things.
“We’ve all taken images from the web. But taking images that the creator/owner took down and that the subject doesn’t want you to have is shitty.”
Translation: “Stealing is OK, but, not, like, when it’s from me. Besides, when I take something off the Internet, it should mean it disappears forever. You’re mean and I’m gonna tell the teacher. I mean, your editor. And your webhost.”
Come on, Urban Honking! I thought you were all for badass creativity and constructive chaos, not a bunch of whiny tittybabies. Think of what Matt did as an awesome act of civil disobedience! You know, like blocking off Alberta on Last Thursday! It’s the same thing!
“We’ve all taken images from the web. But taking images that the creator/owner took down and that the subject doesn’t want you to have is shitty.”
Translation: “Stealing is OK, but, not, like, when it’s from me. Besides, when I take something off the Internet, it should mean it disappears forever. You’re mean and I’m gonna tell the teacher. I mean, your editor. And your webhost.”
Come on, Urban Honking! I thought you were all for badass creativity and constructive chaos, not a bunch of whiny tittybabies. Think of what Matt did as an awesome act of civil disobedience! You know, like blocking off Alberta on Last Thursday! It’s the same thing!
Richard, thanks for clearing up any doubt that you might be a lawyer.
No credit was given to the photographs used in the article.
The “grown-ups”? That sort of language is only used when someone is being childish.
Awesomesaucy: you certainly have a creative way of missing the point.
“Whiny tittybabies.”
Classic.
Mikey, this I believe falls under “fair use” doctrine. (which is confusing at best, even for lawcritters)
This is from the Stanford University Law Library.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
Unfortunately, the only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court. Judges use four factors in resolving fair use disputes, which are discussed in detail below. It’s important to understand that these factors are only guidelines and the courts are free to adapt them to particular situations on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a judge has a great deal of freedom when making a fair use determination and the outcome in any given case can be hard to predict.
“The four factors judges consider are:
1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.”
The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use
In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being a primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new, or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions:
* Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
* Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?
2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
Because the dissemination of facts or information benefits the public, you have more leeway to copy from factual works such as biographies than you do from fictional works such as plays or novels.
In addition, you will have a stronger case of fair use if the material copied is from a published work than an unpublished work. The scope of fair use is narrower for unpublished works because an author has the right to control the first public appearance of his expression.
3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken
The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the “heart” of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems if you take the most memorable aspect of a work.
4. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market
Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. As we indicated previously, depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true even if you are not competing directly with the original work.”
On #’s 1,2, and 4 Matt is definitely on the side of the angels. #3 is iffy, and being unable to view the original I have no way to judge.
And all we are possibly talking about is the “before” pic of Dan. The “after is in the public domain.
The law is murky here ( google “fair use” and internet for an eyeful), but I really don’t see a problem. Of course, if Mr. Halstead (or his lawer) specifically request the photo be taken down, Matt I’m sure would honor the request.
I love to pick on Mr. Davis for being a silly Englishman, a golfer, and a gentrifier, but he is not a thief.
Mikey, this I believe falls under “fair use” doctrine. (which is confusing at best, even for lawcritters)
This is from the Stanford University Law Library.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
Unfortunately, the only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court. Judges use four factors in resolving fair use disputes, which are discussed in detail below. It’s important to understand that these factors are only guidelines and the courts are free to adapt them to particular situations on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a judge has a great deal of freedom when making a fair use determination and the outcome in any given case can be hard to predict.
“The four factors judges consider are:
1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.”
The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use
In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being a primary indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new, or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions:
* Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
* Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?
2. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
Because the dissemination of facts or information benefits the public, you have more leeway to copy from factual works such as biographies than you do from fictional works such as plays or novels.
In addition, you will have a stronger case of fair use if the material copied is from a published work than an unpublished work. The scope of fair use is narrower for unpublished works because an author has the right to control the first public appearance of his expression.
3. The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken
The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the “heart” of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems if you take the most memorable aspect of a work.
4. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market
Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. As we indicated previously, depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true even if you are not competing directly with the original work.”
On #’s 1,2, and 4 Matt is definitely on the side of the angels. #3 is iffy, and being unable to view the original I have no way to judge.
And all we are possibly talking about is the “before” pic of Dan. The “after is in the public domain.
The law is murky here ( google “fair use” and internet for an eyeful), but I really don’t see a problem. Of course, if Mr. Halstead (or his lawer) specifically request the photo be taken down, Matt I’m sure would honor the request.
I love to pick on Mr. Davis for being a silly Englishman, a golfer, and a gentrifier, but he is not a thief.
addendum… If Halstead (or his lawyer) asked urbanhonking to remove the pics, then Matt should pull the “before”. The “after” is still in public domain.
What Richard said.
What Richard said.
I read the story. Let’s review.
You posted an outraged account of a police beating on the Internet so the world could read it, and included photos.
A reporter read it, saw a story, contacted all involved for comment, and wrote an entirely sympathetic piece, including the photos you apparently wanted the world to see – one of which was a public domain police shot.
What’s your beef, son?
Some of the answers to your question, DTC, may be found here:
http://mattdavisopenshismouth.com/2008/06/i-hate-portland/#comments
Knowing things about the situation that were not in the story, the logical conclusion to me is that the all the people involved (the victim, the victim’s lawyer, and the person who posted the information) didn’t want the information to be in print. I think Matt knew this.
Was it legal? I would argue no, but I acknowledge I might lose that argument.
Was it ethical? I would argue no, and I would expect to win that argument.
To answer DTC, my “beef” is that Matt clammed up and pointed me to his editor as soon as I asked if he had permission to use the photo. The whole “I’m not gonna answer those questions” tactic got me a little pissed. I’m sorry I got upset, I was taking the whole thing pretty personally as I know the people involved.
Anyway, it will be Thursday again soon enough and none of this will likely matter for any of us again. For the most part the discourse here has been surprisingly civil, which for the internet is no small accomplishment.
Mikey,
I would argue “yes” on the ethics question, as Matt’s intent was clearly to generate interest and attention and sympathy for Mr. Halstead. He’s not attempting to monetize (if he was selling t-shirts with) the “before” and “after” pics it would be a very different, nor is he plagiarizing or copying a substantive portion of work.
Remember that all we are possibly discussing is the head-shot of Dan Halstead before the beating. The “after is already in public domain and off the table.
And just where did urbanhonking get the original pics? Did they have explicit permission to use them? I don’t know. It sounds like you’ve got some background with the story, I’m always ready to be schooled.
Matt most certainly has the right to report on the story, no matter what the law-varmints say. He’s a reporter. That’s what he does.
I will agree that his “refer to my editor” comment was unfortunate, but honest to god, he’s telling a story trying to help the guy, and gets called a thief?
I’d be pissed-off as well.
Also, in my defense, it is standard practice for any reporter confronted with legal questions to refer them to his or her editor. I’m sure you can understand that there are sound business reasons for that.
I appreciate the civility of the discussion here, too.
Hopefully there are no lingering hard feelings.
Although a valid part of the argument is that you have also posted the photos here on your blog, where you are the editor.
(Richard, this is an interesting argument. You’ve got me thinking…)
But did Mr. Halstead want the interest and attention?
According to what I have heard, the answer is no. Mr. Halstead’s lawyer, when asked, was the one that made the call to remove the text and images. Did Matt Davis contact Halstead’s lawyer? If so, he should know that posting the images was not in Halstead’s interest, and if not, he’s a weaker journalist for it.
This means that the removing of the story and the images was in the best interest of Mr. Halstead and his attempt to hold the police accountable. Therefore, it doesn’t seem like a huge leap to me to see the publishing of this story as damaging to the case.
Only Matt Davis can answer the question about his intentions, and even then, I would suspect his answer is somewhat biased.
As for the image, let’s get into that in more detail. The image was created by John. He searched for the “before” image (of his friend), resized and cropped it to match the after, and then pieced the two images together. Matt Davis (whom I am no longer personally upset with) stole that image. Theft. Stole it. No question there. He didn’t recreate it, he didn’t find the “after” image on the county website.
That image was published on UrbanHonking.com, and that image in no way belongs to Matt Davis or the Portland Mercury. I feel pretty strongly about that. Likewise, the introduction of the article was all taken from an account published on UrbanHonking.
Had this story been published in the Willamette Week, or the Oregonian, then there is no way Matt Davis would have quoted from what they published and stolen their images.
I propose that Matt Davis doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Halstead, and in no way is he interested at all in helping him. He wants to publish stories about the Police being bad. He enjoys that. It’s his “thing” or whatever at the Merc.
Sidenote: I think Davis was attempting to monetize the story in that he gets paid to write these things, and by his own admission, “… journalists are all interested in furthering our own careers, and any speech or writing we do is usually calculated to have that effect.”
(Richard, this is an interesting argument. You’ve got me thinking…)
But did Mr. Halstead want the interest and attention?
According to what I have heard, the answer is no. Mr. Halstead’s lawyer, when asked, was the one that made the call to remove the text and images. Did Matt Davis contact Halstead’s lawyer? If so, he should know that posting the images was not in Halstead’s interest, and if not, he’s a weaker journalist for it.
This means that the removing of the story and the images was in the best interest of Mr. Halstead and his attempt to hold the police accountable. Therefore, it doesn’t seem like a huge leap to me to see the publishing of this story as damaging to the case.
Only Matt Davis can answer the question about his intentions, and even then, I would suspect his answer is somewhat biased.
As for the image, let’s get into that in more detail. The image was created by John. He searched for the “before” image (of his friend), resized and cropped it to match the after, and then pieced the two images together. Matt Davis (whom I am no longer personally upset with) stole that image. Theft. Stole it. No question there. He didn’t recreate it, he didn’t find the “after” image on the county website.
That image was published on UrbanHonking.com, and that image in no way belongs to Matt Davis or the Portland Mercury. I feel pretty strongly about that. Likewise, the introduction of the article was all taken from an account published on UrbanHonking.
Had this story been published in the Willamette Week, or the Oregonian, then there is no way Matt Davis would have quoted from what they published and stolen their images.
I propose that Matt Davis doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Halstead, and in no way is he interested at all in helping him. He wants to publish stories about the Police being bad. He enjoys that. It’s his “thing” or whatever at the Merc.
Sidenote: I think Davis was attempting to monetize the story in that he gets paid to write these things, and by his own admission, “… journalists are all interested in furthering our own careers, and any speech or writing we do is usually calculated to have that effect.”
Mikey, I’m not interested in your opinions about the quality, weakness, or strength of my journalism. Also, get real. I’m paid to write stories. That’s my job. I’m not sorry.
“Monetize” the situation. Please. What is it that you do to “monetize” your life? No, really. Do tell…because you seem to have a lot of time on your hands. And if you’re trying to keep the conversation civil, you could do worse than to drop the whiny, judgmental tone. Because it’s making me want to lash out. And really, I think at this point, I would be justified in doing so.
Mikey, “The image was created by John. He searched for the “before” image (of his friend), …Matt Davis… stole that image.”
Oh, OK, I get it. John (whoever he is) “searched” for the original, didn’t create it. And that is somehow substantially different than what Matt did.
AND MATT FUCKING STOLE NOTHING! He gave credit and attribution in his original article. Yeah, he probably should have repeated the attribution here, but as anyone who clicks the link sees the attribution, this is a minor detail beyond belief.
On a separate note, I made a mistake when I advanced the argument about Matt’s story being in Halstead’s interest.
It may well be, but that’s beside the point. He’s a reporter who’s paid to write about what’s happening. NOT to play nice or make people happy. (believe me, there are moments when I could cheerfully feed his liver to the crows).
On another separate note, SHARING INFORMATION IS WHAT THE FUCKIN INTERNET IS ABOUT, YOU FUCKIN MORON! Those who want their work protected put watermarks on their photos and copyright notices on their webpages. Others (like Matt) use the Creative Commons model.
urbanhonking has neither, as far as I can tell, which makes them as stupid as most of the other pretentious, fixie-riding artistes who are polluting our town. I’m now looking for an opportunity to steal the bitches blind.
Neither reason, nor common sense, nor the law seem to have much impact on you Mikey.
Matt may be worried about burning bridges, I, however, am not. So kindly go fuck yourself with a chainsaw, you stupid shit. I’m done.
I don’t see why it would be necessary to insult the entire community of UrbanHonking, which consists of many and varied people, most of whom do not own “fixies” nor have they entered into this discussion at all.
dalas v, you are correct. I apologize to all the fine folk over at urbanhonking.com My temper got the better of me. Mikey, however, can still go fuck himself with a chainsaw.
dalas v, you are correct. I apologize to all the fine folk over at urbanhonking.com My temper got the better of me. Mikey, however, can still go fuck himself with a chainsaw.
I’m reminded of the young Portlander who rode her bicycle topless during the nude bike ride (or maybe it was gay pride), and then went on the Internet to profess sweet astonishment and righteous fury that spectators were daring to take photos of her breasts. Her screed was forwarded around the country, to great amusement.
Being outraged that someone would photograph you when you were naked in public is naïve. Complaining about it on the Internet is just active stupidity.
Likewise, when you post a story like this one in public and expect privacy, that’s naïve.
But when you continue to belabor the very thing you wish would go away and give it continued publicity and discussion – that’s just active, ongoing, relentless stupidity.
(I do notice that the Portland police, who have the most to gain from having this story fade away, haven’t said a word here.)
wow, I really fucked up with that last comment. I thought we had moved beyond being personally upset with other and were arguing the points, and I was laying out my argument…
Didn’t intend to offend, I was just trying to strongly assert my perspective, and I was expecting the same with some rebuttal.
Clearly I came on to strong. Sincere apologies. This sort of discussion is difficult on the web where you have no sense of tone.
“Theft. Stole it.” Seems to me you established the “tone” you wanted quite nicely. You repeated it frequently and firmly. You DID intend to offend, and to hell with your wimpy apology. You called a friend a thief, and then refused to listen to reason. Fuck you.
“Theft. Stole it.” Seems to me you established the “tone” you wanted quite nicely. You repeated it frequently and firmly. You DID intend to offend, and to hell with your wimpy apology. You called a friend a thief, and then refused to listen to reason. Fuck you.
Fuck me…
If you go back to the very first thing I posted on this thread, it was asking Matt Davis if he had permission to post the photos. The question of “theft” has never been rebutted or explained by Matt.
I posted it that strongly because that is the main point I was trying to make, and that is the issue I wanted to discuss. In my mind, it is theft, and I tried to explain that with examples of the WWeek or Oregonian.
Again, I didn’t intend to offend. I’m sorry that I escalated things into the ugly side of the internet. I was *just* telling someone how pleasantly surprised I was at how civil this whole thread was and I was excited to return to it for some honest debate/discussion.
I started that thread off completing you Richard, because the argument you were making was making me rethink my own position. I come back to find you cursing at me and saying I should fuck myself with a chainsaw…
I did call Matt a thief, but I was also listening to reason. That’s why I keep coming back here, because I was thinking we’d reason out some mutual understanding of the situation.
It’s just to easy for us to sit and curse at each other on the web (which after all the “fuck you” and other insults pointed my way, has been difficult), but then what? I don’t think Richard or Matt is an asshole because I know I have come off as one, and I’m not an asshole either.
It doesn’t have to be all rainbows and kittens either. Attack my ideas as brutally as you can, and a few disparaging remarks about my intelligence in the course of an argument are expected, but attack the ideas, not the person.
Give me a little benefit of the doubt, trust me that I am _NOT_ trying to offend you, insult you, or put you down, and let’s have an intelligent reasoned argument about our disagreements.
Mikey: My cell number is on the right if you want to discuss this further.
Mikey: My cell number is on the right if you want to discuss this further.
Also, anonymous comments to this post are being deleted and their authors blocked. Bitchy little pricks get no airplay here.
What I want to know is, does tagging really warrant tasering the shit out of a drunk person and possibly killing him?
Hey Mikey -
The fact of the matter is that whether Matt had permission to use the image or not, you’re acting like a prick. If you want him to remove the image, email him like and adult and ask him to do so, don’t put some snakry bullshit comment on his blog and act like you’re the grown up one here.
Hey Mikey -
The fact of the matter is that whether Matt had permission to use the image or not, you’re acting like a prick. If you want him to remove the image, email him like and adult and ask him to do so, don’t put some snakry bullshit comment on his blog and act like you’re the grown up one here.
THANK YOU, Michelle. GOOD BLOODY QUESTION.
THANK YOU, Michelle. GOOD BLOODY QUESTION.
When did “snark” and “acting like a prick” become such taboos on the internet? Are we all making macaroni picture frames or having a debate? I only ask because I haven’t actually seen anyone respond to any of Mikey’s questions between all the cries of “foul”.
Another good question: “What checks (copy, libel, etc) does the Merc content go through before being posted?”
Matt’s coverage contains just a few examples in a long history of the paper’s freewheeling ways. From cribbing art for covers, to ambush-journalism to just being plain wrong on the facts– they have an arts-and-entertainment mentality to journalism and it undermines their credibility.
Gene – I don’t consider “snark” and “acting like a prick” taboos on the internet… I consider them taboos in life.
But now that I know who you are Mikey, I take it all back and I want to make out with you. Can you get me a job at Panic?
… what?
Clarification -
I don’t actually want to make out with you… I want to make out with PANIC… unless it will help me get that job, in which case I’m sure my wife will understand.
…see… HETEROSEXUAL.
… I did it again didn’t I?
Clarification -
I don’t actually want to make out with you… I want to make out with PANIC… unless it will help me get that job, in which case I’m sure my wife will understand.
…see… HETEROSEXUAL.
… I did it again didn’t I?
Um Dane:
“… you’re acting like a prick. … don’t put some snakry bullshit comment on his blog and act like you’re the grown up one here.”
You is having the same issues methinks. Did you read Mikey’s comments before you posted your own snark? Do you understand the issues involved? Questions like personal blog vs. news articles accountability, journalistic standards in the age of the internet, etc. etc.
Mikey’s tone seemed a 3/10 on the snark meter and he had a ton of valid questions dodged or ignored. Maybe I’m numbed by reading too many political blogs but I really didn’t think he dropped any rhetorical daisy-cutters on anyone.
And yeah Panic would be a really fucking cool place to work…
Everyone should be happy to know that Matt and I are meeting in person. I’m sure we’ll hold hands and look at puppies and exchange woven flower headbands.
Dane, I guess we shouldn’t go around calling people “pricks” on the internet, huh? Seriously though, I didn’t know what I wanted, because the article was printed in the paper, and you can’t just “take it down” after they’ve done that.
I wanted to hear Matt’s explanation for his actions and show him that (in my opinion) he fucked up a little bit. Like anyone, I can get riled up in the internet, but c’mon, I didn’t tell anyone to fuck themselves with a chainsaw or anything.
Everyone should be happy to know that Matt and I are meeting in person. I’m sure we’ll hold hands and look at puppies and exchange woven flower headbands.
Dane, I guess we shouldn’t go around calling people “pricks” on the internet, huh? Seriously though, I didn’t know what I wanted, because the article was printed in the paper, and you can’t just “take it down” after they’ve done that.
I wanted to hear Matt’s explanation for his actions and show him that (in my opinion) he fucked up a little bit. Like anyone, I can get riled up in the internet, but c’mon, I didn’t tell anyone to fuck themselves with a chainsaw or anything.
I propose that we change the name from “The Rose City” to “The City With the Complete and Utter Inability to Just Let It Go, Man.”
DTC, welcome to the world of blog comments, you must be new!
So I shouldn’t have posted the same picture on my blog?
Ha! Whew!
Let’s all hold hands for a minute.
So I shouldn’t have posted the same picture on my blog?
Ha! Whew!
Let’s all hold hands for a minute.
so does the fact that the image in question appears to have been removed signify that it was used in the wrong?
I predict we will never know the answer to that A.D. Matt.
I predict we will never know the answer to that A.D. Matt.
“I wanted to hear Matt’s explanation for his actions and show him that (in my opinion) he fucked up a little bit. Like anyone, I can get riled up in the internet, but c’mon, I didn’t tell anyone to fuck themselves with a chainsaw or anything.”
@Mikey… I regret the chainsaw comment. I’m usually a bit more articulate than that. But your repetitive to the point of mind-numbing monotony of the pejorative labels of “thief” and “stolen” towards someone who at WORST made a simple mistake in an area where the law is murky at best…are an example of Portland at it’s very worst.
Thinly veiled hostility under a guise of passive-aggressive politeness, all while claiming to want to engage in discussion. Shit, you should be on the city council!
You didn’t even have the decency to get righteously pissed-off. Nor did you ever answer the questions about how your friend acquired the images in the first place after his “search”. Seems a “pot and kettle” scenario to me.
Your moral high-ground is non-existent, your arguments impotent, and your protestations of innocence vapid.
Even if technically the law is on your side, common sense and ethics are not. I refer you to my above post from the Stanford University Law Library.
And Mikey, if you want to engage in debate or discourse, calling someone a thief is, at best, a pretty inept way to begin.
(Rather than spew some mean-spirited nonsense here I’m just going to email Richard directly, again.)